People v. MacKenzie

• Decision Date: 29 September 1997
• Citation: 664 N.Y.S.2d 947,242 A.D.2d 739
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 8230 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward MACKENZIE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 947

664 N.Y.S.2d 947

242 A.D.2d 739, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 8230

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward MACKENZIE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Sept. 29, 1997.

Michael A. Fiechter, North Bellmore, for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Alexis Kriedman, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered March 16, 1994, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, robbery in the third degree (two counts), and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for the review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police. By decision and order dated September 30, 1996, this court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to hear and report on the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) and on his motion under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see, People v. MacKenzie, 231 A.D.2d 740, 647 N.Y.S.2d 825). The Supreme Court, Nassau County, has filed its report.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the trial court's determination that the prosecutor's facially neutral explanations for excluding black jurors were not pretextual (see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 353, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1862-63, 114 L.Ed.2d 395, affg. 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173).

Further, the trial court, after a hearing, properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds (see, CPL 30.30).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and FLORIO, JJ., concur.